Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2601.09702

Diagonalization Without Relativization A Closer Look at the Baker-Gill-Solovay Theorem

Baruch Garcia
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We already know that several problems like the inequivalence of P and EXP as well as the undecidability of the acceptance problem and halting problem relativize. However, relativization is a limited tool which cannot separate other complexity classes. What has not been proven explicitly is whether the Turing-recognizability of the acceptance problem relativizes. We will consider an oracle for which R and RE are equivalent; RA = REA, where A is an oracle for the equivalence problem in the class ALL, but not in RE nor co-RE. We will then differentiate between relativization and what we will call "semi-relativization", i.e., separating classes using only the acceptance problem oracle. We argue the separation of R and RE is a fact that only "semi-relativization" proves. We will then "scale down" to the polynomial analog of R and RE, to evade the Baker-Gill-Solovay barrier using "semi-relativized" diagonalization, noting this subtle distinction between diagonalization and relativization. This "polynomial acceptance problem" is then reducible to CIRCUIT-SAT and 3-CNF-SAT proving that these problems are undecidable in polynomial time yet verifiable in polynomial time. "Semi-relativization" does not employ arithmetization to evade the relativization barrier, and so itself evades the algebrization barrier of Aaronson and Wigderson. Finally, since semi-relativization is a non-constructive technique, the natural proofs barrier of Razborov and Rudich is evaded. Thus the separation of R and RE as well as P and NP both do not relativize but do "semi-relativize", evading all three barriers.

Explore related subjects

cs.CC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Baruch Garcia. 2026-01-14. Diagonalization Without Relativization A Closer Look at the Baker-Gill-Solovay Theorem. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09702

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Bit-counting complexity classes

We define bit-counting complexity classes whose membership depends on the binary profile of the number of accepting paths of non-deterministic polynomial time Turing machines. We study the relationship between this new family of complexity classes and the classical complexity classes. We prove that the complexity class ${\bf PP}$ is contained in our comparison based bit-counting complexity classes ${\bf B_{|0|=|1|}P}$, ${\bf B_{|0|<|1|}P}$ and ${\bf B_{|0|>|1|}P}$. We then show that the comparison based bit-counting complexity classes and the complexity class ${\bf PP}$ are Turing equivalent, that is ${\bf P}^{\bf PP} = {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|=|1|}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|>|1|}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|<|1|}P}}$. We then prove that the complexity classes ${\bf NP}$ and ${\bf CoNP}$ are contained in both of our parity based bit-counting complexity classes ${\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}$ and ${\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}$. We also show that the Turing closures of the parity based bit-counting complexity classes coincide, that is ${\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0|\oplus}P}}={\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|1|\oplus}P}}$. We do this by proving that when either parity based bit-counting complexity class is provided as an oracle for a polynomial time Turing machine, then it can simulate the other one, that is ${\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}\subseteq {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}}$ and ${\bf B_{|0| \oplus}P}\subseteq {\bf P}^{{\bf B_{|1| \oplus}P}}$.

cs.CC↗
arXiv2026

Formalizing PARITY Circuit Lower Bounds in Lean

We formalize Hastad's PARITY lower bound in Lean using the switching lemma. For every fixed d >= 2, formulas and DAG circuits of computation depth at most d computing PARITY on n inputs require size exp(Omega_d(n^(1/(d-1)))) for all sufficiently large n. This matches the classical upper bound up to constants in the exponent and implies that PARITY is not in nonuniform AC0. We also construct a polynomial-size, logarithmic-depth bounded-fan-in formula family for PARITY, providing a witness to NC1 is not a subset of AC0 for the formalized models. The Lean source code is available at https://github.com/formalcs/circuit-complexity and is checked with Lean 4.33.1 and mathlib 4.33.1.

cs.CC↗
arXiv2026

Constant-Coin Complete-Information Debates for $\mathsf{P}$ with Arbitrarily Small Strong Error

We study complete-information debate systems in which a probabilistic finite-state verifier reads the alternating messages of a prover and a refuter. Demirci, Say, and Yakaryılmaz showed that every language in $\mathsf{P}$ has such debates checkable with a constant number of random bits and arbitrarily small weak error. Their strong-error construction, which also counts nontermination as failure, did not permit arbitrary error reduction. We close this gap: for every $L\in\mathsf{P}$ and every $\varepsilon>0$, there is a constant-space verifier using a constant number of private coin tosses that has perfect completeness and strong error at most $\varepsilon$. The verifier simulates a polynomial-time alternating multihead finite automaton, privately spot-checking one of its input heads. The key observation is that, on a nonmember, the refuter may concede any round in which the prover first misreports a head reading. This ensures termination against every prover when the refuter follows the specified strategy, and permits strong-error reduction by repetition.

cs.CC↗